<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On Aug 12, 2011, at 3:54 PM, Eric Christopher wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On Aug 12, 2011, at 3:50 PM, Eli Friedman wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; ">Note that this change affects the existing non-atomic load and store<br>instructions; the parser now accepts both forms, and the change is noted<br>in the release notes.<br></span></blockquote></div><br><div>Since there are already a pile of incompatible language changes for 3.0 did we want to avoid the compatibility change and maybe just use AutoUpgrade if we wanted to?</div></div></blockquote><br></div><div>We can drop compatibility with 2.9 whenever 3.1 is released, but 3.0 should still read 2.9 files.</div><div><br></div><div>-Chris</div><br></body></html>